East Point planning panel denies rezoning request for Headland Drive lot; variance also rejected

The East Point Planning Commission on Oct. 16, 2025 rejected a rezoning application by property owner Latiqua Johnson to change 0 Headland Drive from R-1 single-family to R-3 multifamily and voted to accept staff’s recommendation to deny a concurrent variance to reduce the side-yard setback from 6 feet to 3 feet.

Johnson told the commission she intends to live on the site and proposed an eight-unit rental development of townhome-style units, each described in the applicant’s presentation as about 1,800 square feet with four bedrooms and three bathrooms; the total building footprint was described as a little over 14,000 square feet. Johnson said the corner lot is larger than adjacent lots, that the design places parking at the rear and that the project aligns with the neighborhood-center future land-use guidance.

Staff told commissioners the property is about 0.73 acres, sits adjacent to commercial zoning on two sides and falls within the city’s “neighborhood center” future land-use designation, which staff said generally anticipates 6–8 units per acre. Based on that math staff recommended rezoning approval with conditions limiting the project to no more than six dwelling units on the 0.73-acre site, a required evergreen landscape buffer where the lot adjoins single-family homes, and plan-review items including infill/design review. Staff recommended denial of the requested side-yard setback variance because, staff said, that relief would not be needed if the project were limited to the six units recommended.

A neighbor, Myra Oviatt, speaking for nearby residents, read a written statement from a neighbor identified in the record as Anissa (full name not in the record) asking the commission to deny the rezoning and variance. The written arguments, read into the record by Oviatt, said the application exceeded suburban-residential density, constituted spot zoning, relied on a self-created hardship, provided no public benefit, and would set a precedent that could erode single-family protections in the area. Oviatt added anecdotal concerns about cut-through traffic on the two nearby dead-end streets and the effect of increased traffic on older residents.

Commissioners asked questions about whether a traffic study was required (staff and the applicant said city thresholds for requiring a traffic study are much higher — staff cited thresholds of about 500 single-family or 700 multifamily units), whether the applicant owned an adjacent parcel, building/fire-safety details (the applicant said plans and fire-safety details were available but not submitted that night), and whether additional neighborhood meetings could be required as a condition. Attorney Wiggins advised that, if the commission approved zoning that conflicted with the comp plan designation, the comp plan would be amended as part of the approval language; Wiggins also noted the option of attaching conditions directing further community engagement during design review.

After discussion commissioners voted to deny staff’s recommendation to approve the rezoning (recorded in the meeting as “staff’s recommendation on the rezoning is denied”) and subsequently approved staff’s recommendation to deny the requested variance to reduce the side-yard setback.

The commission’s recorded action leaves the rezoning request unsuccessful at the Planning Commission level; the transcript does not show a separate vote that would have explicitly adopted an ordinance to rezone the property. The application remains subject to any appeal or future resubmittal under the city’s rules (the attorney noted a one-year waiting period for reapplication in certain denial scenarios).